Announcing the New Hammer HHT

[Varmint Hunter]

Steve, what weight bullet do you suggest for my Savage 110UL 7 PRC out of a 22" proof barrel? I practice to 1000 yards at my farm, but limit shots on elk (out west) to shorter and more practical distances based on specific bullet performance. I want to order some today, but my OCD brain can't decide between the 162 vs 170 HHTs, as I haven't seen load data on the 162 HHT. Thanks.

Not Steve, but you should indicate your barrel twist rate. It's probably an 8" but who knows.

 

[shinbone]

Also not Steve, but hard to imagine that a 7mm 162gn mono at ~3000 fps is inadequate for elk.

 

[6.5x300 WBY]

Definitely not Steve but I bet he won't recommend a 7mm Hammer that heavy that you posted 162 or 170's

 

[CaptDru]

Definitely not Steve but I bet he won't recommend a 7mm Hammer that heavy that you posted 162 or 170's

Why not? He has plenty of horse power to run either one.

 

[dustbag]

Steve, what weight bullet do you suggest for my Savage 110UL 7 PRC out of a 22" proof barrel? I practice to 1000 yards at my farm, but limit shots on elk (out west) to shorter and more practical distances based on specific bullet performance. I want to order some today, but my OCD brain can't decide between the 162 vs 170 HHTs, as I haven't seen load data on the 162 HHT. Thanks.

Same question but 20" 8 twist

 

[ButterBean]

Why not? He has plenty of horse power to run either one.

Speed Kills

 

[deputyrpa]

Definitely not Steve but I bet he won't recommend a 7mm Hammer that heavy that you posted 162 or 170's

Shirley you must not be serious.

Actually, I spoke to Brian at Hammer and he said either one would suffice. I opted for the 162gr, as any increase in velocity mitigates field errors (ranging, wind, etc.), the most minor of which could cause bad shot placement, or *gasp* a miss. Also the point of the 162gr is a good deal shorter than that of the 170gr, which gives me more powder options due to seating depths. The performance on elk would be neglegible between the two. We'll see how it flies.

 

[deputyrpa]

Same question but 20" 8 twist

The Hammer website has load data where they have the 170gr scooting at 3200fps out of a 24" barrel with RL26 and Ramshot (I think). That's nifty, and I'm sure you'd get 3000fps easy with a 20". The 162s should be at least 50fps faster than the 170s.

 

[Calvin45]

Speed Kills

Oh Mr bean you know I too like my speed…I will however add the obvious caveat that the highest IMPACT velocity, not the highest MUZZLE velocity, is where the killing power is. BC isn't irrelevant or meaningless, it's just not the holy grail it's made to be by many.

 

[deputyrpa]

Oh Mr bean you know I too like my speed…I will however add the obvious caveat that the highest IMPACT velocity, not the highest MUZZLE velocity, is where the killing power is. BC isn't irrelevant or meaningless, it's just not the holy grail it's made to be by many.

Absolutely.

 

[fordy]

Gday flyguy1

OK, Hammer gurus. I'm going to have a Model 70 Varmint .223 barrel replaced; probably Bartlein. Idea is to still shoot 55 gr cheap ammo at PDs, but maybe HHTs for deer/antelope. I'm guessing 68 gr, but maybe 74. So, will this work? I can see the rec twist rate on Hammer site, but don't know if that would mess me up with 55 gr. Clearly I'm not an expert on twist rate, so any help is appreciated.

I personally wouldn't worry about the bigger 224 hht

Not that they don't work but nothing is coming close to the 57hht on the results I've seen guys getting

No personal experience yet but I will have some coming soon as that pill is ticking more boxes than any other I've seen in that 224 line so I've gotta see what all this koolaid is about
A interesting observation from a bloke I value his information as he is pretty darn thorough this pills bc seems higher than advertised (57hht ) now put the wound channel that surpasses many 6mm & if this all holds out I just wouldn't bother with the other ones
Mmm speed & bc & great wound channels
Does it get any better hmmm yep my 375 278 gr hht lol

Cheers

 

[fordy]

Gday Calvin

Oh Mr bean you know I too like my speed…I will however add the obvious caveat that the highest IMPACT velocity, not the highest MUZZLE velocity, is where the killing power is. BC isn't irrelevant or meaningless, it's just not the holy grail it's made to be by many.

Impact velocity is spot on & I wish we would talk that more as a hole on the way a pill is evaluated as then we will see patterns easier on where pills limits are being reached or the sweet spots pills exhibit on those impacts

I'll settle for that first as resistances are the next one but if we don't keep preaching impact velocities the resistances are one that are gets lost on evaluations

Keep on that train your doing well

Cheers

 

[6.5x300 WBY]

Shirley you must not be serious.

I actually am. It's only a guess what Steve would recommend. But yes you would be fine with the weights of 162 / 170's. But I would guess something in the 140' to 150's. But its only a guess what he thinks Not myself

 

[6.5x300 WBY]

Why not? He has plenty of horse power to run either one.

Yup I agree. But I just guess Steve if asked a question he would of picked something a bit lighter. But like I said I am guessing what Steve would say Not me.